The Speaker or the Message, which influences you more?

For me, it's always about the message first. Though, I do sometimes need to know where the person is coming from in order to understand the message.

I think the message is more important then the person. I had the opportunity to question our Democratic candidate for governor on Saturday night. He gave the answers I expected him to give. I also questioned the flunkies that were following him around. To say they were “lost in space” would have been a compliment. I think too many people are getting into politics because they see it as an "in" and perhaps getting to mingle with the movers and shakers. The actual act of taking part in the political process is the farthest thing from their minds. There are still people who want to change the government for ideological reasons but too many people see it as a stepping stone to power rather then making any type of social changes regardless of party affiliation.

If you are after wisdom, or after information, or after counseling you will listen to a Speaker and his Message, but you won't normally listen to anybody, you just won't waste your time.... The Speaker thus becomes key in what he delivers, what are his credentials? his background? his life style? how does he conduct his personal life? This is most treasured by politicians who will go to any lenghts to highlight whatever will enhance their reliability, to hide whatever has the contrary effect, to magnify or even outright fabricate whatever they don't have but wished they had.... This does not mean that the Speaker has to be always a brilliant personality, sometimes it can be someone from very, very humble or even decayed surroundings and will say something which is like the sound of a Stradivarius...unique, the sound of greatness.... and you will be curious and find out a little more of this humble or run down person, you will scratch the surface and find that below there's only gold... But in either case, the first one where the credentials and deeds are clear and generate trust, and the second where a unique sound of greatness makes you look below the surface and find gold, in both cases, it's integrity which always has the upper hand in whatever message is delivered. That there can be decepcions??? There certainly can... but then.... such is life......

The message is by far the most important. Even the people I respect the most sometimes say things I don't agree with, and I'm more than willing to challenge them on it.

For example, I was raised as a Christian, and I still believe strongly in Jesus' message of love and forgiveness, but there are things in the Bible I don't agree with (such as Paul's sexism in the later books of the New Testament) and I'm horrified at the way extremist so-called "Christians" misquote Jesus or ignore his words altogether and dig through the Old Testament for justifications for their bigotry and hatred. Even the most sacred sources of information shouldn't be blindly trusted with no rational thought, and voting for a candidate for no other reason but that he claims to be a Christian is foolish and irresponsible. A candidate's religion should have no bearing whatsoever on his suitability for office.

A reputation is something you cultivate so people can better interpret your message. It would be inefficient for all messages to be broadcast in a vacuum. The fact that so many people figured out that something 'went wrong' with you that day has some value that should not be discounted.

Separating the message from the messenger would be ideal for an informed electorate. However, we don't live in such an ideal place. Given that, the market has decided that investing in reputations (and believing messengers) is the next best thing to an informed electorate.

It can be hard to distinguish wether you are being influenced more by the speaker's ability or the quality of the message.

For instance, the time Lloyd Bentson was debating with Dan Quayle and Benston said,

"I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, Senator you're no Jack Kennedy".

What a speaker, what a message! I don't know what it was that swayed me more, the speaker or the message.

Maybe it was just the dumb look on Dan Quayles face.

Here's the clip, watch it again and tell me which one sways you more.

I try not to let my own views of the speaker affect my understanding of the message, but I think the stronger your opinion of the speaker, the less likely you'll study the message with an appropriately critical eye. The more you like and agree with someone in general, the more likely you'll accept what they say without questioning it too much; inversely, the more you dislike or the less you respect someone or his views, the more likely you'll dismiss the message out of hand without even giving it a chance, so to speak.

A great example of this is in the global warming debate, and the one politician we all agree is most associated with it - Al Gore. You have told people yourself to look not at Gore, but at the research, because you understand that the further right a person is, the less likely he is to trust Gore or anything he says. I look at myself and see that very point - I personally don't trust Gore, so I'm not inclined to believe anything he says, but I know that I'm not qualified to express a relevant, informed opinion on global warming itself, as I have yet to look at the research. I'm quite skeptical of what I've seen so far, but I haven't seen much, and I know that I need to see more before I can form my own rational conclusion.

I'll never get "best answer" for this, but let me lay out for you, Coranth, what I think the underlying paradigm is and how it relates to political messages.

Years ago, in a desperate attempt to get enough credits for my undergraduate degree, I took a course at University of Illinois called "Attitude Theory and Persuasion." Let me sum across a few theories with this explanation: if I want to influence your opinion about someone (or something), I can draw your attention to a relationship to a second thing that you feel strongly about. For example, (1) a Jaguar automobile and (2) a pretty woman. Your attitude towards the Jag will change according to two factors: (a) your BELIEF about the strength of the connection between the Jag and the woman, and (b) your FEELINGS about the woman. (Association and emotion, get it?)

Now shift your attention to a Karl Rovian world of political communications and see how he "poisons the well" of political messages. In Karl's world, you win a fight by turning an opponent's positive into a negative. So when Governor Ann Richards was on her way to re-election, having established a positive record of inclusiveness and good relations with minorities, a phone bank mysteriously began calling into conservative east Texas, telling stories about homosexuals running the governor's office. The more strongly the link was made from the candidate to "inclusiveness," the more toxic the result.

In a better-known scenario, when John Kerry brought forth the strength of his military record, a shadowy group, the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" appeared out of nowhere to question his war record. Even the unsavoriness of that group itself seemed to sour one's opinion about anybody that could have been connected with them. Kerry made the connection, but the veteran status was now poisoned!

Let's look at your question again. If I trust someone, it is because I believe he/she is (a) a strongly connected with (b) values that I share and accept. If they say something very strange and unseemly, I'll probably (a) question it (i.e., feel that they had a (b) bad day). If they keep it up over a long time, I'll probably become (a) convinced that they have become, Tom Cruise-like, (b) crazy. My attitude, and level of trust, will have changed.

On the other hand, if I already have strong negative opinions about a speaker, I'm likely not to accept their "agreeable" statement, because of my existing beliefs about them. Only with a strengthening of my belief-link to "positive values" will I come to accept their message, no matter how seductive.

Political operatives want you to make the (a) connections to (b) positives for their candidate, and the negatives for the other side, as I have illustrated above. There is a continuous ebb and flow, particularly with an electorate which is, for the most part, not paying much attention to start with.

There you go, you've just avoided about 36 hours of lectures and 50 pounds of reading material.

what the candidate says,, you are correct, so many say they hate Hillary, but agree that education is in crisis in American Schools, that health-care costs have destroyed the middle class, so there called the working poor now,,, they agree that the president should have been given the power to engage our military if deemed necessary, although many know that invading Iraq was indeed a misuse of power, now that everyone knows what many already knew, that the Iraq war was planned before 9-11 and had nothing to do with Iraq,,,, the policies of the candidate are the measure of their worth,,, the voters in the US should ask themselves some hard questions about the direction of our country,,, and what their party stands for,,, I doubt that anyone doesn't lean left or right on some main issues,, but the morality of our nation has never been in more jeopardy than it is today,,, one question in particular should be answered ,, is what you believe less important than belief itself,,,, women in Lebanon supporting terrorists said that their son or daughter was sacrificed for their God,, martyred,, so they might get themselves to heaven to have sex, and pave the way for the rest of the family, who stay behind and praise their suicide and the murder of innocence,,,,

So many "short'n'sweet" answers here, and some "long winded" ones ! but here is mine ;

Your experiment is not totally accurate, as it is not a true representation of how we choose a political candidate.

In "Answers", we may have our own favourite, good or bad members, but it is easy to separate the messenger from the message, without danger, we can agree with them sometimes, & disagree some other time. These members are not going to become a political figure, because of our occasional agreement with them .

In real life politics, the situation is obviously different, as should a candidate get their foot through the door ( get elected ), they can do real good or real damage ! so their reputation in the past would be an indication of how they will behave in the future ( in office ), so although we may agree or disagree with them on a few points, we do not base our opinions of them, on a few points, and tend to see them based on their past reputation.

A candidate , during election, may change colour, for the sake of the election, but we suspect him/her to go back to his/her usual self, afterwards.

The crucial point is , our perception of messenger's ( candidate ) belief in the messege they are bringing, i.e. "is it just a ploy to get elected ?" or " Does he genuinely believe in it ? "

More irrelevent (& stupid), is , when some voters feel a sense of loyalty to one party, against another, and they see it as treason to even consider a candidate from the opposite party.

I personaly no longer vote for whom I believe in, as I believe votes have become irrelevent, after 30 years of voting and seeing so many governments from both sides, I have noticed , nothing really changes in governments.

The line between Republicans and Democrates is so thin in reality ( and so between Torry and Labour in UK ).

I would like to think I was mature and informed enough to assess the message and not be influenced by the messenger. However, there are times when my own biases, whether unconscious or otherwise, come into play. Change the gender of your avatar and see what response you get. You may be surprised (or not).